The amount of money spent on welfare programs equals, when converted to cash payments, about "$168 per day for every household in poverty," the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee finds. Here's a chart detailing the committee's findings:

According to the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee, welfare spending per day per household in poverty is $168, which is higher than the $137 median income per day. When broken down per hour, welfare spending per hour per household in poverty is $30.60, which is higher than the $25.03 median income per hour.

"Based on data from the Congressional Research Service, cumulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per household living below the poverty level," writes the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee. "By comparison, the median household income in 2011 of $50,054 equals $137.13 per day. Additionally, spending on federal welfare benefits, if converted into cash payments, equals enough to provide $30.60 per hour, 40 hours per week, to each household living below poverty. The median household hourly wage is $25.03. After accounting for federal taxes, the median hourly wage drops to between $21.50 and $23.45, depending on a household’s deductions and filing status. State and local taxes further reduce the median household’s hourly earnings. By contrast, welfare benefits are not taxed."

The universe of means-tested welfare spending refers to programs that provide low-income assistance in the form of direct or indirect financial support—such as food stamps, free housing, child care, etc.—and which the recipient does not pay into (in contrast to Medicare or Social Security). For fiscal year 2011, CRS identified roughly 80 overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these federal programs, when taken together with approximately $280 billion in state contributions, amounted to roughly $1 trillion. Nearly 95 percent of these costs come from four categories of spending: medical assistance, cash assistance, food assistance, and social / housing assistance. Under the President’s FY13 budget proposal, means-tested spending would increase an additional 30 percent over the next four years.

The diffuse and overlapping nature of federal welfare spending has led to some confusion regarding the scope and nature of benefits. For instance, Newark Mayor Cory Booker has recently received a great deal of attention for adopting the “food stamp diet” in which he spends only $4 a day on food (the median individual benefit) to apparently illustrate the insufficiency of food stamp spending ($80 billion a year) or the impossibility of reductions. The situation Booker presents, however, is not accurate: a low-income individual on food stamps may qualify for $25,000 in various forms of welfare support from the federal government on top of his or her existing income and resources—including access to 15 different food assistance programs. Further, even if one unrealistically assumes that no other welfare benefits are available, the size of the food stamp benefit increases as one’s income decreases, as the benefit is designed as a supplement to existing resources; it is explicitly not intended to be the sole source of funds for purchasing food.

I'd be interested to see the calculations involved here. Unfortunately, your source contains exactly what you've posted above, and not a single thing more. What does the supposed conversion to cash actually entail?

Timminz wrote:I'd be interested to see the calculations involved here. Unfortunately, your source contains exactly what you've posted above, and not a single thing more. What does the supposed conversion to cash actually entail?

It shows that it's better for households to live on the government dole than to earn for themselves.

What is the incentive to get off welfare if you'll end up earning less than when you are collecting?

Haha, that's like a bucket versus a tidal wave when you compare it to how much the rich take from us over a mere 3% increase in tax. Night Strike wants to take away $168 dollars a day away from someone who ONLY HAS THAT MUCH TO LIVE ON. The wealthy make tons by stripping away your pensions and cannibalizing other players in the capitalist market, condensing power and allowing these failure CEOs to continue getting raises that outpace the average growth 231 times to one! These bastards rob us blind and we let them pay less taxes too? They have more than enough and they need to support the system that paved the way for their success. The wealthy understood this in post World War II America.

Which of course leads to the conclusion that the Baby Boom generation has damaged America. They were handed a much better, much brighter world than we were. They were able to afford college on their summer earnings. CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT? So these entitled munches get into power and OOPSY, f*ck it up for the rest of us. Then these assholes on Wall Street orchestrating bubbles, instead of being more traditional and better actors in the big picture.

The Baby Boomers have handed us a worse world than they were given, they have failed as a generation and we need to stop following their misguided policies of the last 30 years. And all of these dingbats running around teabagging each other need to get an actual education. You're at the age now where ignorance isn't really acceptable anymore.

jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...

pimpdave wrote:Haha, that's like a bucket versus a tidal wave when you compare it to how much the rich take from us over a mere 3% increase in tax. Night Strike wants to take away $168 dollars a day away from someone who ONLY HAS THAT MUCH TO LIVE ON.

You seem to be inferring things that NS never said. What incentive is there for a person to get off welfare if they will end up making less?

You making a big deal over the $168 a day and yet not a single mention of the working people who are making even less ($137) and are funding the dole. Man, you got a messed up brain.

PD wrote: The wealthy make tons by stripping away your pensions and cannibalizing other players in the capitalist market, condensing power and allowing these failure CEOs to continue getting raises that outpace the average growth 231 times to one! These bastards rob us blind and we let them pay less taxes too? They have more than enough and they need to support the system that paved the way for their success. The wealthy understood this in post World War II America.

You know the real money makers? Makes the CEO raises look like peanuts. More 'bout that in a short bit.....But before that, ask yourself, what was different back then than now? Think about that for a moment, PD.

PD wrote:Which of course leads to the conclusion that the Baby Boom generation has damaged America. They were handed a much better, much brighter world than we were. They were able to afford college on their summer earnings.

Another piece of the puzzle. Put it together and you see the real picture, unless of course, you view everything through a lens of class envy and warfare.

PD wrote: CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT? So these entitled munches get into power and OOPSY, f*ck it up for the rest of us. Then these assholes on Wall Street orchestrating bubbles, instead of being more traditional and better actors in the big picture.

What? You mean the government itself doesn't have a hand in the creation of bubbles? Pfffttt.

PD wrote:The Baby Boomers have handed us a worse world than they were given,

Yeah...and from your rhetoric we can assume you and your ilk would make a better world? I doubt you could make a better ham sandwich, let alone a better world....

PD wrote:they have failed as a generation and we need to stop following their misguided policies of the last 30 years.

Hey! Now you're making progress! Maybe all is not lost on you.

PD wrote: And all of these dingbats running around teabagging each other need to get an actual education.

Opps, looks like I jumped the gun a bit there. Back to your old self again.

All the problems you describe can be attributed to the decline in the value of our currency. Dollar debasement. News flash for ya PD, it's planned like that. How else can some $16 trillion+ in debt be paid if not inflated away?

And therein is were you find what was different back then than it is now. Why college education was cheap. Why Dad's pay alone was enough to pay for the family's needs and Mom could stay at home and raise decent children. The reason why more and more people can now not find the jobs to make ends meet and must get on the government dole.

Inflation. The natural end result of all fiat money systems. This current system we have today has only been around since 1971. Fiat currencies only have a life of around 38 years. Ours is very old as it stands and what we are seeing is the predictable and natural consequence of printing money out of thin air.

If you truly understood the Tea party, (the real Tea Party before it was co-opted by political hacks), you'd be calling for the same thing if you understood the real root of our problems. Sound money, less government waste (which by definition is less government period) and greater freedom.

Fucking fools, distracted so easily by partisan talking points and all the while ignoring The Money Power that is truly in control. This conflict between the Money Power and the People has been going on throughout the United States entire history. We have long since forgotten this though. At least you, PD, are one who appears quite unaware at least.

I don't think it's saying that welfare recipients are making 168 per day.

I think it's saying that the revolting Welfare Cheque Writers (the lowest form of life in the Universe, seriously, if you do this for a living let me know so I can foe you), their supervisors, their supervisors, their supervisors, their supervisors, their managers, their overseers, their supervisors, their managerial staff, their secretaries, their janitors and everyone else combine to suck money.

I am not opposed to the idea of welfare. I realize that welfare creates incentive for people to be total suck-bag losers and I like this. I want others to fail. However, I think private companies with no unions could do it a lot more effectively, and make me win twice (I already win once just with welfare existing, I would win twice if I could pay less for the chance to ruin somebody's life).

I will not stand for an America where reckless bankers and suicide bombers can make a mockery of our promise for tomorrow.

It's a touchy subject for many, but there are welfare cliffs and they can be charted. Take a look-

Looking at the above chart it should now be clear to what NS is talking about. As the benefits increase and the number of people getting those benefits increase, the money to fund the benefits is taken from those who are working. It gets to the point where a person is better off staying on the dole than finding a job and becoming self sufficient. This is a vicious cycle.Those who are on it will be worse off to get off it. Since people naturally do what is in their best interest, we'll end up with more and more taking from fewer and fewer until the whole thing collapses and nobody has anything.

Admittedly, it's a tough thing to balance. There will be people in distress that need to be helped. How that help is delivered is what needs to be figured out. The current system is not sustainable and is deeply flawed.

MeDeFe wrote:ITT Nigh Strike disregards the fact that not only households with a below-poverty-level income receive "welfare".

I've checked, twice, please quote NS as to anything he's said. He posted an article along with a link with no comment.

I've merely commented on that the article is another articulation to the dangers of the poverty trap created by welfare programs. NS made no claims as of yet ITT.

What you seem to be disregarding is that it's not just the money the recipient gets, it's the administrative costs and other costs associated with getting that payment to the person in the first place.

The cost of welfare has now exceeded the average median income. And with another planned 30% increase in the costs forthcoming. It's going to become apparent that to work and not be on the government dole makes one a sucker if this trend continues and it's unsustainable. Yet it's always to throw more money at the problem because any look at such things is met with partisan attack instead of just trying to figure out what it means without the partisan lens.The US is sinking nearly a trillion dollars into welfare programs a year. Divide the total number of recipients into that, regardless of their income level, and come up with a per recipient cost. That cost now exceeds the average median income.

No matter who you are, you must accept that this is a problem. The poverty level in the US is the highest it's been since 1993.The Us spends about $900 (in 2010) billion in welfare programs paid out to 46.2 million people. Do the math.

patches70 wrote:What you seem to be disregarding is that it's not just the money the recipient gets, it's the administrative costs and other costs associated with getting that payment to the person in the first place.

Does anyone have data on what percentage of welfare costs actually gets dispersed to welfare recipients, as opposed to being spent on bureaucracy?

patches70 wrote:What you seem to be disregarding is that it's not just the money the recipient gets, it's the administrative costs and other costs associated with getting that payment to the person in the first place.

Does anyone have data on what percentage of welfare costs actually gets dispersed to welfare recipients, as opposed to being spent on bureaucracy?

Why would you separate the two?(Just curious as to exactly why you think this is relevant. Why wouldn't one consider the total cost?)

The fair way to view is to take the total amount spent on welfare programs (around $700billion by federal programs and another $200billion from the States) and divide by the total number of people receiving said assistance (no matter how small or large that assistance is).Problem is, most of this stuff is estimated. I'm not sure even the government really knows what's spent on what and to whom, let alone administration costs.

There are some 185 federal welfare programs alone. Like federal housing assistance (spent $77billion in 1010), WIC (along with dozens of other federal nutrition welfare programs, spent $100billion in 2010), income security programs (such as AFDC, TANF, EITC and other similar programs, spent $200billion in 2010).

That's not even counting the State welfare programs. Estimated at around $200billion total in 2010. The census bureau is where you'd find information on how many may be receiving benefits. Last census data that I am aware of is around 46 million or so Americans. More than that receive benefits I'd wager, but plug in numbers and see what you come up with.Use $900billion as the gross spending on welfare, since that's what the government itself claims is spent on welfare programs (which you can find out on your own if you wanted to).

For instance-

Here you see that TANF and AFDC has around 4.6 million total recipients. That's about a third of the Federal welfare spending right there. TANF and AFDC are income security programs ($200billion spent in 2010 of a total of $700billion in federal spending on welfare in 2010). That's hard numbers there, $200 billion spent on 4.6 million people. That's about $43,000 a person. You think each of those 4.6 million people got that much money each? LOL So, fair warning, you'll get sick to your stomach when you find out how much spent and compared to how much gets to the people who actually need it is. That is the nature of government.

Of course, there are another hundred+ programs to go through, aren't there? You can get the data if you want, have fun!

Side note, there are private welfare programs as well. You won't be able to track most of that though, because it's private. Estimates of that are around $10billion or so. A drop in the bucket compared to government, but I wonder which would have lower administration costs. Hmmmm........

But, in the end, I don't give a crap, really. There is no question that once getting on welfare, due to taxes that one will incur if they find a job to get out of being eligible for welfare, will find themselves losing money. Thus, it's better for one to stay within that specific income level to keep getting the benefits than to work for more money and not make up for the lost benefits.Looking at the highest welfare cliff, a person going from $29K a year job to a $69K year a job ends up being worse off. That is just sick. Thus, you can see the poverty trap that comes from the US welfare program.

patches70 wrote:What you seem to be disregarding is that it's not just the money the recipient gets, it's the administrative costs and other costs associated with getting that payment to the person in the first place.

Does anyone have data on what percentage of welfare costs actually gets dispersed to welfare recipients, as opposed to being spent on bureaucracy?

Why would you separate the two?(Just curious as to exactly why you think this is relevant. Why wouldn't one consider the total cost?)

Well, in principle bureaucracy costs can be reduced through streamlining. I want to know what the minimum possible cost of our welfare system is, in addition to what it actually is because of inefficient overhead.

Metsfanmax wrote:Well, in principle bureaucracy costs can be reduced through streamlining. I want to know what the minimum possible cost of our welfare system is, in addition to what it actually is because of inefficient overhead.

Hmmm, streamlining. Elaborate on that if you would. I suppose it could be argued that the minimum possible cost of our welfare system is what we already spend, since lots of people say we don't spend enough. After all, didn't that mayor of whatever city do that publicity stunt of only spending $4 a day on food like welfare recipients (supposedly) get?

You saw this part of my post?-

patches wrote:Here you see that TANF and AFDC has around 4.6 million total recipients. That's about a third of the Federal welfare spending right there. TANF and AFDC are income security programs ($200billion spent in 2010 of a total of $700billion in federal spending on welfare in 2010). That's hard numbers there, $200 billion spent on 4.6 million people. That's about $43,000 a person. You think each of those 4.6 million people got that much money each? LOL So, fair warning, you'll get sick to your stomach when you find out how much spent and compared to how much gets to the people who actually need it is. That is the nature of government.

I'm curious to hear what you say about streamlining. To me, that means eliminating jobs, government jobs. Combining federal welfare programs (which means eliminating jobs, government jobs), eliminating regulations (which leads to abuse and fraud) or tightening regulations (which means hiring more people, more government jobs). Getting better equipment (capital expenditure, for government, very costly).Tell me, a politician who is telling people he's going to cut their jobs, how does that voting go for him?

The real reason we have to spend more and more and more money, government and individuals alike, is because our money is worth less and less.

Don't you see, we spend so much more money and still get pretty much the same things we did in 1970. A house, food, transportation, clothes, education, healthcare, entertainment. But back in 1970 and before, that could be done by most American families one a single paycheck. And back in the 1970's and before we had our currency pegged, at least partially, by gold. That ended when Nixon (to pay for wars and social programs) slammed the gold window shut and effectively defaulted on our currency (but the world just looked the other way back then).Now a days, American families are getting the exact same stuff but it takes two incomes just to scrape by (and ain't saving a damn thing).

It's the money. Its the currency being less and less valuable.

Streamline all you want, it won't matter because the currency just keeps getting less and less valuable. That's why before we ever have any chance at all of fixing any of this other stuff, we have to get into sound money. Get out of this debt based system.At this point, considering how uneducated and how distracted the American public is on this issue (considering the obfuscation ITT at the very least), the only way that's going to happen is after a complete meltdown of the economic system. Total collapse. At which point, if we haven't learned our lesson, it will be replaced with some equal scam as the Federal Reserve Note.

Metsfanmax wrote:Well, in principle bureaucracy costs can be reduced through streamlining. I want to know what the minimum possible cost of our welfare system is, in addition to what it actually is because of inefficient overhead.

Hmmm, streamlining. Elaborate on that if you would. I suppose it could be argued that the minimum possible cost of our welfare system is what we already spend, since lots of people say we don't spend enough. After all, didn't that mayor of whatever city do that publicity stunt of only spending $4 a day on food like welfare recipients (supposedly) get?

I have nothing to elaborate. I wasn't offering a plan, I was just curious exactly how much money is spent on overhead.

Timminz wrote:I'd be interested to see the calculations involved here. Unfortunately, your source contains exactly what you've posted above, and not a single thing more. What does the supposed conversion to cash actually entail?

It shows that it's better for households to live on the government dole than to earn for themselves.

What is the incentive to get off welfare if you'll end up earning less than when you are collecting?

Why would you quote me, when you weren't going to address my question?

Timminz wrote:I'd be interested to see the calculations involved here. Unfortunately, your source contains exactly what you've posted above, and not a single thing more. What does the supposed conversion to cash actually entail?

It shows that it's better for households to live on the government dole than to earn for themselves.

What is the incentive to get off welfare if you'll end up earning less than when you are collecting?

No, it does not say that. As Timminz says, it only shows a graph that suggests it, and does not show where the numbers came from or how they were calculated.

Timminz wrote:I'd be interested to see the calculations involved here. Unfortunately, your source contains exactly what you've posted above, and not a single thing more. What does the supposed conversion to cash actually entail?

It shows that it's better for households to live on the government dole than to earn for themselves.

What is the incentive to get off welfare if you'll end up earning less than when you are collecting?

Why would you quote me, when you weren't going to address my question?

Given his response, I dont think he read the quote. There are other assumptions one could make on why such a ridiculous statement would be made after too.

The amount of money spent on welfare programs equals, when converted to cash payments, about "$168 per day for every household in poverty," the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee finds. Here's a chart detailing the committee's findings:

According to the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee, welfare spending per day per household in poverty is $168, which is higher than the $137 median income per day. When broken down per hour, welfare spending per hour per household in poverty is $30.60, which is higher than the $25.03 median income per hour.

"Based on data from the Congressional Research Service, cumulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per household living below the poverty level," writes the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee. "By comparison, the median household income in 2011 of $50,054 equals $137.13 per day. Additionally, spending on federal welfare benefits, if converted into cash payments, equals enough to provide $30.60 per hour, 40 hours per week, to each household living below poverty. The median household hourly wage is $25.03. After accounting for federal taxes, the median hourly wage drops to between $21.50 and $23.45, depending on a household’s deductions and filing status. State and local taxes further reduce the median household’s hourly earnings. By contrast, welfare benefits are not taxed."

The universe of means-tested welfare spending refers to programs that provide low-income assistance in the form of direct or indirect financial support—such as food stamps, free housing, child care, etc.—and which the recipient does not pay into (in contrast to Medicare or Social Security). For fiscal year 2011, CRS identified roughly 80 overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these federal programs, when taken together with approximately $280 billion in state contributions, amounted to roughly $1 trillion. Nearly 95 percent of these costs come from four categories of spending: medical assistance, cash assistance, food assistance, and social / housing assistance. Under the President’s FY13 budget proposal, means-tested spending would increase an additional 30 percent over the next four years.

The diffuse and overlapping nature of federal welfare spending has led to some confusion regarding the scope and nature of benefits. For instance, Newark Mayor Cory Booker has recently received a great deal of attention for adopting the “food stamp diet” in which he spends only $4 a day on food (the median individual benefit) to apparently illustrate the insufficiency of food stamp spending ($80 billion a year) or the impossibility of reductions. The situation Booker presents, however, is not accurate: a low-income individual on food stamps may qualify for $25,000 in various forms of welfare support from the federal government on top of his or her existing income and resources—including access to 15 different food assistance programs. Further, even if one unrealistically assumes that no other welfare benefits are available, the size of the food stamp benefit increases as one’s income decreases, as the benefit is designed as a supplement to existing resources; it is explicitly not intended to be the sole source of funds for purchasing food.

Funny how so much of the "information" you post refers to sources that seem very reliable, but somehow lack any trace of the data used.

I went through some calculations, all referenced, and came up with figures between $50 and $90 a day, depending upon rental costs. (note, I copied the websites twice and then hit the wrong key twice..)

A few issues... first, childcare costs are very tricky. For one thing, they are only provided to people who WORK FULLTIME, which means they are really just a means of allowing employers to justify paying adults less than it really takes for them to live (after all, people take these jobs, so the wage "must be OK"). It really is a back-handed business benefit, allowing them to get more responsible workers for much lower cost than otherwise. Further, those working part-time usually don't qualify,even though most part-time people using a professional childcare provider will have to pay full time rates because they often don't have steady schedules. This is a BIG reason why people with more than one child often find its CHEAPER not to work.

Second, medical care costs truly skew the above. A lot of adults who don't work have disabilities that prevent them working and also have very high medical costs. Many families with a disabled child are also not able to fully work, and wind up relying upon those subsidies to help. NONE of that is detailed out.. its all just grouped as "welfare". Further, if you want to get down to it, medical care is available to everyone.. the most expensive care, anyway. Anyone can go to the emergency room and get treated for serious conditions. They will loose what assets they have, but that is irrelevant to this. Ironically, those on Medicaid are very, very cost effective. Keeping a child healthy costs far, far less and results in huge payoffs when that child reaches adulthood.

This brings up another point. Nothing at all is mentioned about the overall real cost of these programs, just the payout. As noted in the Wikki site about WIC, WIC actually saves taxpayers 3 times what it pays out overall. (You can read the details on the Wikki site yourself)